18. Mr Jean-Francois Pulvenis described the perceived role of
RFBs. He urged Meeting participants to take into account the wide variety of
mandates and competences shared between different RFBs. Second, he noted that
the establishment of most bodies emanates from international law, and this
should not be underestimated. He reported that during COFI, many delegations
insisted that we are entering into a stage of implementation of international
instruments, which will enhance the role of RFBs. As such, the focus should not
only be on the formal RFBs activities (i.e. meetings every two years), but also
on the role of RFBs between meetings. In this respect, RFB secretariats have an
important role in working towards effective decision-making mechanisms during
intersessional periods between their meetings.

19. Ms Judith Swan outlined the role of RFBs, particularly as
described in the following FAO Fisheries Circulars and Technical Consultations
produced since the Third Meeting of RFBs in 2003:

FAO Fisheries
Circular C995 - "Decision-making in regional fishery bodies or arrangements: the
evolving role of RFBs and international agreement on decision-making
processes";

"Technical Consultation to
review progress and promote the full implementation of the International Plan of
Action on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and the International Plan
of Action on the Management of Fishing Capacity, Rome, 24-29 June 2004",
and

"Technical Consultation to
address substantive issues relating to the role of port States in preventing,
deterring and eliminating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing,
Rome,31 August-2 September 2004."

20. Ms Swan emphasized that recent international instruments
had moved forward the important role that RFBs are playing in fisheries
management as well as provisions related to decision-making.

21. In particular, she noted that effective and timely
decisions for conservation and management measures are still required from
RFMOs. Key issues to be addressed include transparency and improvement of
dispute prevention, as distinct from resolution, mechanisms. The
diversity of rules among RFMOs on objection procedures for conservation and
management measures were noted. It was agreed that time delays associated with
such procedures often dilute the effectiveness of RFMO measures.

22. In reporting on the result of an RFB survey dealing with
IUU fishing, Ms Swan described actions and measures taken to combat IUU fishing
and the main constraints that prevented the implementation of effective
measures. A clear challenge identified was the difficulty for RFBs in assessing
the impact and extent of IUU fishing. The implications for RFBs in the outcomes
of the two Technical Consultations above were also described, with emphasis
being accorded to the increasing importance being attached to RFBs in respect of
improving global fisheries governance.

23. The Meeting agreed that IUU fishing affects coastal
waters, as well as inland fisheries. This is of particular concern in areas
where poverty alleviation is a major issue. Several inland commissions
emphasised that IUU fishing is a significant problem in inland waters, and may
differ in nature from the examples in maritime fisheries.

24. In discussion, the Meeting noted the major involvement of
RFBs in implementing the four IPOAs and the FAO Strategy for Improving
Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries (STF Strategy). It was
also noted that there is a need for a more coordinated international effort to
implement these IPOAs and the STF Strategy, identified above.